community resilience: challenges, requirements, and organizational models
DESCRIPTION
An important challenge for human societies is that of mastering the complexity of Community Resilience, namely “the sustained ability of a community to utilize available resources to respond to, withstand, and recover from adverse situations”. The above concise definition puts the accent on an important requirement: a community’s ability to make use in an intelligent way of the available resources, both institutional and spontaneous, in order to match the complex evolution of the “significant multi-hazard threats characterizing a crisis”. Failing to address such requirement exposes a community to extensive failures that are known to exacerbate the consequences of natural and human-induced crises. As a consequence, we experience today an urgent need to respond to the challenges of community resilience engineering. This problem, some reflections, and preliminary prototypical contributions constitute the topics of this presentation. A companion article is available at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67040428/Articles/serene14.pdfTRANSCRIPT
Community Resilience: Challenges, Requirements, and Organizational Models
VincenzoDe FlorioMOSAIC: UniAntwerp iMinds
Times, they are a-changin’…
Less resources
Higher peaks, harder
shocks
Higher number
of users…
ICT
Energy product-ion & distribution
Businesses
Transport ofgoods & people
Water treatment& distribution
CRISISMANAGEMENT
Understanding & rethinkingour organizations is crucial!
With the meter in the red zone…• …organizations that
appeared to work fine reveal their limitations!– lose too much – use up too many resources– do not scale well– intolerable to changes– fail to address new aspects
→ Traditional approaches are reaching structural limits.
Challenges• How do we address “big” societal
problems such as crises & disasters?• How do we rethink our organizations?
Which tools, which software could help?
1.Intro: What are crises?2.A case study3.Requirements4.Conjectures & models
This ppt
CRISES
Single events(or chains thereof) with multiple and diverseconsequences
PUBLICHEALTH
ECONOMY
PUBLICSAFETY
NATIONALSECURITY
CRISES
Single events(or chains thereof) affectingmultiple "human circles"
People
Local responders
State responders...
Businessorganizations
KATRINA
One of the five deadliest hurricanes in US history
Katrina’s circles:Private circles
People:Individuals, families,neighbors...
Private organizations:Business orgs, communities
Katrina’s circles:Institutional circles
Local institutions:City policeFire brigadesFlood rescue
Katrina’s circles:State circles
Stateorganizations:Depts ofemergencymanagement
Budget: (e.g., California): $80M/y
Katrina’s circles:Federal circles
Federalorganization:FederalEmergencyResponseOrg, $10.9B/y
Katrina’s circles:National circles
Dept of HomelandSecurity(created in 2001; abso- rbed FEMA in 2003)
Requested budget (2015): $38.2B
The farther,the costlier
Katrina’s circlesPeople Individuals, families, neighbors...
Private organizations Business orgs, communities
Local emergency response organization City police, fire brigades, flood teams
State emergency response organization Depts of emergency management:
http://www.fema.gov/state-offices-and-agencies-emergency-managementBudget (California): $80M
• Federal emergency response organization FEMA, $10.9 billion budget (2012)
Absorbed in the DHS (2003)(Department of Homeland Security)
Institutionalresponders
= Multi-level system of emergency mgmt
Privatecircles
How did it fare?
BADLY!
Strict hierarchy→ Each layer is
SPOC & SPOF
Slow initial response
How did it fare?
Info/KW collection/
dissemination: centralized!
Slow reactions
"Where in the hell is the cavalry on this one?!"
How did it fare?
Far-from-the-field control
Wrong/untimely
decisions!
E.g. $12.5M to buy ice for K's victims → unused/melted away
How did it fare?"Poor comm.
among federal/ state/local entities"
"Unadequate readiness"
"Reduced effectiveness"Major reason?
Major reason:Institutional-
only response!“[Responders] would have been
able to do more if the tri-level system (city, state, federal) of
emergency response was able to effectively use, collaborate with,
and coordinate the combined public and private efforts.
How to do so [...] is a central task of enhancing community
resilience.”CARRI 3 Tech Report
Community Resilience• "A measure of the sustained ability
of a community to utilize available resources to respond to, withstand, and recover from adverse situations."
• Conjecture: three aspects.RAND 3 Tech Report
Limited inter-circleinteroperability
Individual-context worst-case dimensioning:Worst-case analysis done w/o considering collaborative sharing of resources among the participating circles
Difficulty to propagateKW & share assets
Three aspects1) Organization
Limited inter-circleinteroperability
Individual-context worst-case dimensioning:Worst-case analysis done w/o considering collaborative sharing of resources among the participating circles
Plastic, fragileorganizations
Difficulty to propagateKW & share assets
Three aspects1) Organization
Limited inter-circleinteroperability
Individual-context worst-case dimensioning:Worst-case analysis done w/o considering collaborative sharing of resources among the participating circles
Plastic, fragileorganizations
Difficulty to propagateKW & share assets
Three aspects1) Organization
Expensive!
Three aspects2) Society
Private circles: INACTIVE!
Three aspects2) Society
Private circles: INACTIVE!
Waste ofsocial energy
Pre-definedroles /
behaviors
Three aspects3) Behavior
Pre-definedroles /
behaviors
Private circles: DEMOTED!
Three aspects3) Behavior
Pre-definedroles /
behaviors
Private circles: DEMOTED!
Passive-behaviored
components (objects!)
Three aspects3) Behavior
→ Emergence failures
Centrifugal forces
Behavioral mismatches →
→ Emergence failures
Centrifugal forces
Behavioral mismatches →
Conjecture 1• Society must be part of "the solution"• Society ≡ abundant "pool" of mobile
“resources” able to exercise complex action
• Need: engineer ways to tap into the nearly unlimited sources of “social energy” of our societies.
Conjecture 2• Fact: Organizational choices
determine the features of our systems• Classic model (quasi-closed,
hierarchical systems): incapable of any complex interoperability.
• Need: open smart organizations– Self-optimizing– Inter-organizational collective strategies– Mutualistic relationships; collaborative
sharing of data and resources, etc.
Conjecture 2 (cont.d)• Conjecture: Biologically inspired
distributed organizations may play a key role in the emergence of collectively intelligent responses – Holarchies and fractal organizations– “Simultaneously a part & a whole, a
container & a contained, a controller & a controlled” [Sousa et al., 2000]
– Networks of peer-levels (members).
Conjecture 3• A match should exist between the
behaviors exercised by the societal nodes and those exercised and expected by the enrolling organization
• Community resilience only emerges when this match is sustained.
Community Resilience• How?• Through sociotechnical
organizations managing communities of participating members.
• No preclusion (→ all society can contribute)
• No constrain (→ behaviors are not pre-assigned)
• Service-oriented communities, fractal social organizations.
Service-oriented Community• Sociotechnical organization
built by explicitly addressing organization/society/behavior:–Node of a distributed organization–Taps into “social energy”–Supports complex resilient
behaviours.
37
Service provider Servicerequester
Service registry
Starting point: classical SOA model
Publish Discover
Bind
Servicedescription
38
Member Member
Service registry
Servicedescription
Service-oriented Community
Publish Publish
Bind
Local reasoning & coordination
Individual &social concerns
optimization
CapabilitiesPoliciesAvailabilityLocation…
Events
People`Things’
Components...
Member
Reasoning & coordination
Member Member
Member w/service & feature registry
Service& feature
Service-oriented Community
Publish Publish
Individual &social concerns
optimization.
CapabilitiesPoliciesAvailabilityLocation…
Events
PeopleDevices
Components
SOCIETY
BEHAVIOUR
OR
GA
NIZ
ATI
ON
Bind
SoC for Ambient Assistance: Mutual Assistance
Community
40
Mutual Assistance Community• Aim:
–Optimally orchestrate devices & beings –Complement existing healthcare orgs–Special purpose SoC: organize intelligent
responses to AAL scenarios• Not just safety nets:
– Reducing social isolation of elderly people– Reducing costs best utilizing the social
resources.
Mutual Assistance Community• Self-serve paradigm (mutually satisfying requests).
Member Member
Service and feature registry
Servicedescription
Publish Publish
Bind
Local analysisand coordination
Intra-circleprocessing
CapabilitiesPoliciesAvailabilityLocations…
Roles &situations
People`Things’
Member
MemberMember MemberMember
SoC's…
Inter-circleprocessing
SoC as a building blockException → Event propagation
Fractal Social Orgs
• Mathematical model: http://goo.gl/gvVGH5
• Geometrical and audio representations– Modularity– Self-similarity– Fractal dimension!
http://goo.gl/vO8RKj
Elements of a ModelModel of the collective behavior in a “flat” society of roles
Society = multiset of roles (=integers)
Example: S = {0,0, 1,1, 2, 3,3, 4,4} =
2 nurses
2 GPs 1 patient2 sensors
2 cars
Elements of a Model
Event: Condition c takes place (for instance, a patient has fallen)Response:
Intervention of 1 GP and 1 nurse. Society S gets partitioned into two “blocks”:
L = {0, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4} and R = {0, 1, 2}.
0011
2222
2222
0123
4567
8
0011
2334
4
• "Templates" that repeat at different scale–Blocks that represent other
"sub-communities" (circles!)–Societal responses to sub-problems!
• Fractal Social Organization: fractal organization of communicating & collaborating communities
Modularity
A fractal organization of SoC’s
51
CIRCLES
Laye
r 0(R
aw
com
po-
nent
s)
ElectronicHealth
Records
...U
pper
la
yers
...La
yer 1
(S
mar
t R
oom
s)
Laye
r 2
(Sm
art
Flat
s)
Laye
r 3
(Sm
art B
uild
ings
)
iMinds project “LittleSister”
Little Sister• Low-cost non-intrusive
telemonitoring solution• System: multi-tier
distributed architecture
• Specially designed low-resolution sensors
Little Sister• Services structured within hierarchical
federation reflecting structure of deployment environment
• All resources wrapped as manageable web services
Little Sister : Resolving Resources• Seamless integration w/ external apps (layer 4)• Information exchange: pub-sub mechanism• Events “flow” upward — dedicated software
component available at each service group
Conclusions• “We are confronted with a vast quantity
of plastic..." organizations!• An organization "is like a parachute --
it doesn't work if it's not open" [ZAPPA!]→ New models are needed!→...With new models... new challenges
– A.o., how to guarantee the identity of the "system"
– SoC and FSO: also tools to raise the attention and enhance awareness
– Much to be done... we're on the move!
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected]@EnzoDeFloriogoo.gl/D9frjV